News:

Forum Upgrade Status Report - Initiating Final Launch CountdownTo paraphrase Walt Disney, you should now prepare to leave behind the world of OCNet today and enter the OCNet of yesterday, tomorrow and fantasy.During the final weeks of the old OCNet forum, substantial maintenance work and database archiving will be in progress in order to ensure the content from the current forum moves smoothly to the new forum. Pay attention to Board News for information on any updates that may affect you.

Please join us in welcoming our very talented new Creative Director, Story, who will be working to beautify OCNet. If you have any skills in graphics or web design and would like to join the creative team, please PM Story and Alpha60.

If the mother dies and the child is born, she will die as a martyr and she will enter the kingdom of God. This is a mother that has sacrificied herself on the altar of the family!

True.. but there's a difference between a mother chosing to give up her life for her child and the church forcing her to. Medical procedures which are necessary to save a mother's life but cause the lose of the child are not forbidden.

There are also cases (for example ectopic pregnancies where the child is developing in the fallopian tube rather then the uterus or outside of the uterus/tube entirely. rare but it does happen) where without intervention *both* mother and child will die.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

What Ebor describes is the principle of double effect, not a direct abortion. Performing surgery on a fallopian tube pregnancy situation that results in the death of a baby is not the same thing as going in and killing it because there is a chance the mother will not survive. The church allows intervention when abortion is an unintended double effect, but not when it is the direct act.

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III states in his book The Ten Commandments , Volume III, page 25:

Quote

Abortion:

Abortion is a form of murdering a living creature which,although not yet born, has a soul that we do not have theauthority to dispose of. There are two kinds of abortion:intentional, and unintentional. Intentional abortion is performedwhen a woman or her family or friends decide to get rid of thefoetus by medical methods. The doctor who does it, is partiallyresponsible for it and is deemed an essential partner in thisincidence of killing. Abortion may also be executed by othermethods very well known to women. In this case theresponsibility falls very clearly on the woman who does it. Yet,the aim behind abortion determines the weight of responsibility,for it may be considered a crime committed to hide anothercrime.

Those helping in the performance of abortion may think theyhave done something proper, such as preventing a scandal, butactually they just participate in a crime of murder. A womanmay have an abortion because she is not willing to give birth tochildren, but this does not make her innocent of the crime ofmurder. Abortion may also be done to protect the mother ifdelivery threatens her life. Doctors may kill the foetus to rescuethe mother, and they excuse themselves for doing so by sayingthat they sacrifice one soul to save another. Thus, the questionhere is being discussed to show how great the responsibilitymay be.

An unintentional miscarriage may happen when a mother is sonegligent that she loses her baby through exhausting herself.An employer may make a pregnant employee work so muchthat she ends up having a miscarriage. Such an employer willbe responsible and will have violated the Sixth Commandmentin this respect. A husband may bear this same responsibility ifhe does not care about the health of his pregnant wife thuscausing her to miscarry.

Peace.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

What Ebor describes is the principle of double effect, not a direct abortion.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Performing surgery on a fallopian tube pregnancy situation that results in the death of a baby is not the same thing as going in and killing it because there is a chance the mother will not survive.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The church allows intervention when abortion is an unintended double effect, but not when it is the direct act.

I believe His Holiness Pope Shenouda III did in fact condemn the conscious and voluntary act of killing the fetus for the purpose of saving the mothers life, per my above quotation of him.

Although I have not read the quote in its original Arabic, and although the translation itself has resulted in pretty dodgy English, I think we can clearly see that the examples presented by His Holiness in the second paragraph, are introduced by him as examples pertaining to those who in “helping in the performance of abortion” think “they have done something proper”, have actually just “participated in the crime of murder.” Amongst the following examples manifesting this principle, he lists the act of doctors murdering the fetus in order to save the life of the mother. The word “may” that he employs in the sentence “doctors may kill the fetus” is used to express possibility of occurrence as opposed to expressing permission - the context proves that he clearly condemns it.

Peace.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

The word “may” that he employs in the sentence “doctors may kill the fetus” is used to express possibility of occurrence as opposed to expressing permission - the context proves that he clearly condemns it.

But, on this website: http://www.lacopts.org/index.php/lacopts/entry/abortion/, it says: "How can a mother, a physician, or anyone agree to participate in ending the life of a living being by having an abortion? From the religious perspective, this can not be accepted unless the continuation of pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, and the only solution is “therapeutic abortion”." Seems to contradict what HH said.

Following the manner in which Ebor and Anastasios have described the nature and purpose of the surgery performed with respect to ectopic pregnancies (assuming for the sake of my own laziness that they are correct), I would say that the performance of such surgery clearly does not fall under the condemnation made by His Holiness in the above quote; that is not to say it is definitely allowed — I simply do not know. All that is known is that what His Holiness seems to specifically condemn, is the conscious, intentional and voluntary act of killing the fetus, and not the conscious, intentional and voluntary act of performing a surgery for the prevention of the death of both mother and child, which may or may not (?) eventuate in the death of the fetus.

The Coptic Orthodox Church (like all other Orthodox Church’s?) does not have some sort of an official book laying down some set of strict legislation on moral issues — we do not approach morality in a strictly theoretical framework that is then blindly applied to practical life. We recognize the fluidity of Christian morality that is most appropriately determined by the practical context of a situation, which is why, according to the reality of the Orthodox experience, these things are looked at on a case by case basis (regardless of any general statements made by certain Bishops), where persons facing such circumstances consult their spiritual adviser or even the local Bishop for advice and ruling on such matters according to the context of situation itself.

Peace.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

He may be meaning an abortion that is caused indirectly as a result of surgery to save a mother's life, what Catholics call "double effect."

Well, His Grace Bishop Serapion seems to explicitly be condoning “therapeutic abortion”, which specifically refers to direct abortion for the purpose of saving the mothers life which is at risk by virtue of the very existence of the fetus. There does seem to be a contradiction therefore, between His Holiness and His Grace on the matter, however this doesn't necessarily present a problem for the Orthodox believer seeking a practical solution (in light of my brief explanation of the practical approach of the Orthodox believer who is ultimately lead by the Holy Spirit), only for those attempting to reduce morality to a static object of strictly theoretical investigation.

Peace.

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Following the manner in which Ebor and Anastasios have described the nature and purpose of the surgery performed with respect to ectopic pregnancies (assuming for the sake of my own laziness that they are correct), I would say that the performance of such surgery clearly does not fall under the condemnation made by His Holiness in the above quote; that is not to say it is definitely allowed — I simply do not know. All that is known is that what His Holiness seems to specifically condemn, is the conscious, intentional and voluntary act of killing the fetus, and not the conscious, intentional and voluntary act of performing a surgery for the prevention of the death of both mother and child, which may or may not (?) eventuate in the death of the fetus.

The Coptic Orthodox Church (like all other Orthodox Church’s?) does not have some sort of an official book laying down some set of strict legislation on moral issues — we do not approach morality in a strictly theoretical framework that is then blindly applied to practical life. We recognize the fluidity of Christian morality that is most appropriately determined by the practical context of a situation, which is why, according to the reality of the Orthodox experience, these things are looked at on a case by case basis (regardless of any general statements made by certain Bishops), where persons facing such circumstances consult their spiritual adviser or even the local Bishop for advice and ruling on such matters according to the context of situation itself.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Peace.

But I'm sure there is some standard of morals in the Coptic Church (ie, a woman can't have an abortion just because she is too lazy to raise it, or because she doesn't like the fact that the baby is a boy, instead of a girl, which she wanted)?

But I'm sure there is some standard of morals in the Coptic Church (ie, a woman can't have an abortion just because she is too lazy to raise it)?

I’m not saying there is no general standard — which is often determined by consensus of opinion (of which there is in the case of the prohibition of abortion where the woman is simply “too lazy” to raise the child — not a very morally complicated scenario) — I am simply saying that there’s always the possibility that a particular case has some relevant and essential contextual factor which may call for special consideration (especially when moral issues get as complicated as they do in the situations we are discussing), and which cannot simply be ignored in the face of some general theoretical ruling on the general subject to which the case relates. The Church is not arbitrary in recognising the fluidity of Christian morality, it is simply being practical - there is nonetheless general standards.

If a believer is confronted with such unfortunate circumstances which call for a complex moral decision to be made, they can rest assured that by confronting their spiritual adviser and local Bishop, and subjecting their own conscious and opinions to the discretion of that spiritual adviser and/or bishop, that they will ultimately be lead by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church as a whole into all truth, not only through Her heirarchs, but also the believers who constitute the body of the Church.

Peace.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2005, 12:33:55 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Well, His Grace Bishop Serapion seems to explicitly be condoning “therapeutic abortion”, which specifically refers to direct abortion for the purpose of saving the mothers life which is at risk by virtue of the very existence of the fetus. There does seem to be a contradiction therefore, between His Holiness and His Grace on the matter, however this doesn't necessarily present a problem for the Orthodox believer seeking a practical solution (in light of my brief explanation of the practical approach of the Orthodox believer who is ultimately lead by the Holy Spirit), only for those attempting to reduce morality to a static object of strictly theoretical investigation.

Peace.

This might be an issue where the EO and OO are at odds. The EO Church teaches that there is no instance--at all--where a direct abortion can occur, and that the Church has competence in this realm since abortion is murder plain and simple. I am concerned that you are reducing the church's ability to stand against immorality by reducing things as black and white as abortion to moral fluidity; I think we can have economy in the way we treat a woman who has had an abortion (show the maximum amount of mercy towards her and help her in any way we can after she has done the deed) but the Church can't ever condone an abortion before it has happened under any circumstance, from an EO point of view.

BTW, I do intend to get back to your earlier post, but you kind of wore me out logically speaking and I still need to recover

This might be an issue where the EO and OO are at odds.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The EO Church teaches that there is no instance--at all--where a direct abortion can occur, and that the Church has competence in this realm since abortion is murder plain and simple.

I wouldn’t go this far in my conclusions, as to say that we are definitely at odds, for two reasons:

a) Because I am really only presenting my own personal interpretation of the apparent inconsistency of opinion between His Grace Bishop Serapion and His Holiness Pope Shenouda III on the matter (though it is one that I stand by). Some (indeed, the Patriarch himself even) may simply interpret it more strictly i.e. they may hold that H. G. Bishop Serapion has simply erred in his statement (Bishops are not infallible in the OO Church — if they are considered as such in the EO Church, then we may be at odds here at least). I therefore wouldn’t go as far as making open blanket statements about our being at odds over this issue; we can at most only be at odds according to my own personal interpretation of the inconsistency - but this is assuming that your statement regarding the EOC’s position is accurate in the first place, which brings me to my next pointÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦

The Orthodox Church has a definite, formal and intended attitude toward abortion. It condemns all procedures purporting to abort the embryo or fetus, whether by surgical or chemical means. The Orthodox Church brands abortion as murder; that is, as a premeditated termination of the life of a human being. The only time the Orthodox Church will reluctantly acquiesce to abortion is when the preponderance of medical opinion determines that unless the embryo or fetus is aborted, the mother will die.

This seems to be clearly condoning ‘therapeutic abortion’ - a procedure by which the fetus is aborted for the sake of the mothers life, as opposed to a procedure by which the fetus dies as an unintended consequence. This implication is made clear by the words “unless the embryo or fetus is aborted”, which suggest that the procedure carried out for the preservation of the mothers life necessarily results in the abortion of the fetus (hence the element of intention), and not simply possibly resulting in the abortion of the fetus.

As to abortion, the Church very clearly and absolutely condemns it as an act of murder in every case. If a woman is with child, she must allow it to be born. In regard to all of the very difficult cases, such as a young girl being raped or a mother who is certain to die, the consensus of Orthodox opinion would be that a decision for abortion might possibly be made, but that it can in no way be easily justified as morally righteous, and that persons making such a decision must repent of it and count on the mercy of God.

This quote is in itself problematic, for not only does it acknowledge the possibility of allowing for abortion in certain circumstances,ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š but it is condoning the possibility of certain acts that are nonetheless considered morally incorrect.

The Orthodox Church does not condone abortion for she holds human life as sacred. Only in the case of therapeutic abortion when the life of the mother is endangered can the possibility of abortion be considered

Nothing different in this comment than that of Bishop Serapion.

Quote

BTW, I do intend to get back to your earlier post, but you kind of wore me out logically speaking and I still need to recover

I do my bestÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Peace.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2005, 02:42:09 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Acording to this, the (official) number of abortions exceeded the number of live births in Russia last year. I'm not trying to point my finger and say that the Russians are bad or Americans are good, etc. I'm just genuinely confused and schocked and ignorant about this. Don't they have contraception? How likely is it that a Russian woman has had an abortion? Also, how does the Church handle that in Russia? Any answers or comments would be appreciated. Thank you.

I wouldn’t go this far in my conclusions, as to say that we are definitely at odds, for two reasons:

a) Because I am really only presenting my own personal interpretation of the apparent inconsistency of opinion between His Grace Bishop Serapion and His Holiness Pope Shenouda III on the matter (though it is one that I stand by). Some (indeed, the Patriarch himself even) may simply interpret it more strictly i.e. they may hold that H. G. Bishop Serapion has simply erred in his statement (Bishops are not infallible in the OO Church — if they are considered as such in the EO Church, then we may be at odds here at least). I therefore wouldn’t go as far as making open blanket statements about our being at odds over this issue; we can at most only be at odds according to my own personal interpretation of the inconsistency - but this is assuming that your statement regarding the EOC’s position is accurate in the first place, which brings me to my next pointÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦

This seems to be clearly condoning ‘therapeutic abortion’ - a procedure by which the fetus is aborted for the sake of the mothers life, as opposed to a procedure by which the fetus dies as an unintended consequence. This implication is made clear by the words “unless the embryo or fetus is aborted”, which suggest that the procedure carried out for the preservation of the mothers life necessarily results in the abortion of the fetus (hence the element of intention), and not simply possibly resulting in the abortion of the fetus.

This quote is in itself problematic, for not only does it acknowledge the possibility of allowing for abortion in certain circumstances,ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š but it is condoning the possibility of certain acts that are nonetheless considered morally incorrect.

EA: But I assume, 99% of the time the COC condemns abortion?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Only in the one percent (maybe slightly more or less) is abortion possibly allowed?

I don't think it'd be wise to reduce this to statistics...

The only instance that I know of in which an exception to the general prohibition against abortion is made, is when the life of the mother is at stake - furthermore, this exception condoning therapeutic abortion, is one that has only been made (as far as I know anyway) by two Bishops (His Grace Bishop Youssef makes a very general and ambiguous statement regarding the matter, which need not necessarily be interpreted as an approval of 'therapeutic abortion' specifically). All other proposed exceptions to the general prohibition against abortion (e.g. as a means of birth control or family planning, to prevent financial/economic hardship, when the woman has conceived from an act of adultery or rape etc.), seem to be unanimously rejected by the Church; She is apparently very strict on such matters.

Peace.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2005, 08:09:45 PM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Sorry to resurrect an ended topic, but I'm not sure if a real conclusion was drawn. I would like to emphasise that our Church does teach that the only time where abortion is permitted (not encouraged) is in the case where a mother's life is at stake. Even His Holiness Pope Shenouda III teaches this, there is no odds between him and the Bishops on this matter. He was speaking of those who choose to end the life a fetus simply because the person doesn't want to be discomforted by having a baby.

I was taught the Double Effect jazz at a Catholic Seminary, and I really don't like it...but that's beside the point. I think a better way to rationalise why we would allow such a thing is by considering that the Church allowed her men to fight wars in the early days. A person who killed in war was not seen as a murderer, and yet they had killed.

I think it's the same case for a woman who is going to die as a result of pregnancy. The unborn fetus, who (like the enemy in war) may not even want to be there, is there nonetheless. This other human being is an aggressor, and the woman has no choice but to face her foe. She must choose to strike or be struck. We would all admire the person who was willing to take the sword, but we also would not expect of her to give the life either. I know it sounds terrible to call an unborn baby an aggressor, I'm just trying to put it into context. Obviously we would never want to have to do something like that; it's an exceptional circumstance.

Please pray for me.

« Last Edit: November 29, 2005, 03:45:50 PM by Fortunatus »

Logged

Agape,Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ FortunatusAmen, maranatha!"A man's life or death cometh from his neighbour; if we benefit our brother we benefit ourselves, and if we offend him we sin against God." - The Great Abba Antony

I think it's the same case for a woman who is going to die as a result of pregnancy. The unborn fetus, who (like the enemy in war) may not even want to be there, is there nonetheless. This other human being is an aggressor, and the woman has no choice but to face her foe. She must choose to strike or be struck. We would all admire the person who was willing to take the sword, but we also would not expect of her to give the life either. I know it sounds terrible to call an unborn baby an aggressor, I'm just trying to put it into context. Obviously we would never want to have to do something like that; it's an exceptional circumstance.

I don't like Double Effect, because it makes it seem like the reason why these exceptions are okay is become of some kind of technicality that doesn't have a Church basis. In this model we acknowledge straight up that something wrong has happened, but we don't need to dance around the words and say that we only did it indirectly. Our Church will allow the direct abortion in the case where the mother is going to die (no dancing) - while still acknowledging that something terrible has happened and that this should never be allowed under any other circumstance. She exalts those that lay their lives down without forcing them to, but does not say that some kind of technical physically indirect act permits the decision to be made to choose to save one's own life...

I'm a little bit out of it, so I hope that made sense.

Please pray for me.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2005, 05:53:17 PM by Fortunatus »

Logged

Agape,Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ FortunatusAmen, maranatha!"A man's life or death cometh from his neighbour; if we benefit our brother we benefit ourselves, and if we offend him we sin against God." - The Great Abba Antony

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III states in his book The Ten Commandments , Volume III, page 25:

Quote

Abortion:

Abortion is a form of murdering a living creature which,although not yet born, has a soul that we do not have theauthority to dispose of. There are two kinds of abortion:intentional, and unintentional. Intentional abortion is performedwhen a woman or her family or friends decide to get rid of thefoetus by medical methods. The doctor who does it, is partiallyresponsible for it and is deemed an essential partner in thisincidence of killing. Abortion may also be executed by othermethods very well known to women. In this case theresponsibility falls very clearly on the woman who does it. Yet,the aim behind abortion determines the weight of responsibility,for it may be considered a crime committed to hide anothercrime.

Those helping in the performance of abortion may think theyhave done something proper, such as preventing a scandal, butactually they just participate in a crime of murder. A womanmay have an abortion because she is not willing to give birth tochildren, but this does not make her innocent of the crime ofmurder. Abortion may also be done to protect the mother ifdelivery threatens her life. Doctors may kill the foetus to rescuethe mother, and they excuse themselves for doing so by sayingthat they sacrifice one soul to save another. Thus, the questionhere is being discussed to show how great the responsibilitymay be.

An unintentional miscarriage may happen when a mother is sonegligent that she loses her baby through exhausting herself.An employer may make a pregnant employee work so muchthat she ends up having a miscarriage. Such an employer willbe responsible and will have violated the Sixth Commandmentin this respect. A husband may bear this same responsibility ifhe does not care about the health of his pregnant wife thuscausing her to miscarry.

Peace.

Thanks be to God for the clear teachings of His Holiness Pope Shenoudah III!

selam

Edited to correct spelling of His Holiness' title.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 10:05:34 PM by Salpy »

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Well, His Grace Bishop Serapion seems to explicitly be condoning “therapeutic abortion”, which specifically refers to direct abortion for the purpose of saving the mothers life which is at risk by virtue of the very existence of the fetus. There does seem to be a contradiction therefore, between His Holiness and His Grace on the matter, however this doesn't necessarily present a problem for the Orthodox believer seeking a practical solution (in light of my brief explanation of the practical approach of the Orthodox believer who is ultimately lead by the Holy Spirit), only for those attempting to reduce morality to a static object of strictly theoretical investigation.

Peace.

This might be an issue where the EO and OO are at odds. The EO Church teaches that there is no instance--at all--where a direct abortion can occur, and that the Church has competence in this realm since abortion is murder plain and simple. I am concerned that you are reducing the church's ability to stand against immorality by reducing things as black and white as abortion to moral fluidity; I think we can have economy in the way we treat a woman who has had an abortion (show the maximum amount of mercy towards her and help her in any way we can after she has done the deed) but the Church can't ever condone an abortion before it has happened under any circumstance, from an EO point of view.

BTW, I do intend to get back to your earlier post, but you kind of wore me out logically speaking and I still need to recover

Anastasios

You say show the maximum amount of mercy towards her and help her in any way we can.... I agree, but don't forget the other half of the equation, the men who are involved.

Part of my story: When I was 20 years old I had relations with a gal I worked with for a period of time. One day she just up'ed and disappeared. A year later I received a letter, I had gotten her pregnant, she told me that she had an abortion, that she was feeling like a murderess, and she did it to protect my future as I was in college. The very core of my soul was severly wounded that day I read that letter, a numbness i wish to never experience again, anger, guilt, shame, etc. Satan had a field day with me. I won't go into the sordid details but i punished myself and tried to destroy myself for 18 years, keeping it hidden within, wishing to die and for many of those years exceptionally angry with God. Then one day I could not handle it anymore, my life was in complete termoil, I couldn't be angry at God for what I had done and someone else. I just wanted healing being so utterly broken inside so I turned to our Lord and a real battle started within myself which brings me up to the 18th year of my struggle. Today I am so dependent on the Lord, I fear losing Him, it would be like riping my skeleton out of my flesh and me crumpling into a pile of goo.

Well, His Grace Bishop Serapion seems to explicitly be condoning “therapeutic abortion”, which specifically refers to direct abortion for the purpose of saving the mothers life which is at risk by virtue of the very existence of the fetus. There does seem to be a contradiction therefore, between His Holiness and His Grace on the matter, however this doesn't necessarily present a problem for the Orthodox believer seeking a practical solution (in light of my brief explanation of the practical approach of the Orthodox believer who is ultimately lead by the Holy Spirit), only for those attempting to reduce morality to a static object of strictly theoretical investigation.

Peace.

This might be an issue where the EO and OO are at odds. The EO Church teaches that there is no instance--at all--where a direct abortion can occur, and that the Church has competence in this realm since abortion is murder plain and simple. I am concerned that you are reducing the church's ability to stand against immorality by reducing things as black and white as abortion to moral fluidity; I think we can have economy in the way we treat a woman who has had an abortion (show the maximum amount of mercy towards her and help her in any way we can after she has done the deed) but the Church can't ever condone an abortion before it has happened under any circumstance, from an EO point of view.

BTW, I do intend to get back to your earlier post, but you kind of wore me out logically speaking and I still need to recover

Anastasios

You say show the maximum amount of mercy towards her and help her in any way we can.... I agree, but don't forget the other half of the equation, the men who are involved.

Part of my story: When I was 20 years old I had relations with a gal I worked with for a period of time. One day she just up'ed and disappeared. A year later I received a letter, I had gotten her pregnant, she told me that she had an abortion, that she was feeling like a murderess, and she did it to protect my future as I was in college. The very core of my soul was severly wounded that day I read that letter, a numbness i wish to never experience again, anger, guilt, shame, etc. Satan had a field day with me. I won't go into the sordid details but i punished myself and tried to destroy myself for 18 years, keeping it hidden within, wishing to die and for many of those years exceptionally angry with God. Then one day I could not handle it anymore, my life was in complete termoil, I couldn't be angry at God for what I had done and someone else. I just wanted healing being so utterly broken inside so I turned to our Lord and a real battle started within myself which brings me up to the 18th year of my struggle. Today I am so dependent on the Lord, I fear losing Him, it would be like riping my skeleton out of my flesh and me crumpling into a pile of goo.

Lord have mercy on me.

Jim

Thank you for sharing your story. I think we often do forget how this issue affects the men involved.

Well, His Grace Bishop Serapion seems to explicitly be condoning “therapeutic abortion”, which specifically refers to direct abortion for the purpose of saving the mothers life which is at risk by virtue of the very existence of the fetus. There does seem to be a contradiction therefore, between His Holiness and His Grace on the matter, however this doesn't necessarily present a problem for the Orthodox believer seeking a practical solution (in light of my brief explanation of the practical approach of the Orthodox believer who is ultimately lead by the Holy Spirit), only for those attempting to reduce morality to a static object of strictly theoretical investigation.

Peace.

This might be an issue where the EO and OO are at odds. The EO Church teaches that there is no instance--at all--where a direct abortion can occur, and that the Church has competence in this realm since abortion is murder plain and simple. I am concerned that you are reducing the church's ability to stand against immorality by reducing things as black and white as abortion to moral fluidity; I think we can have economy in the way we treat a woman who has had an abortion (show the maximum amount of mercy towards her and help her in any way we can after she has done the deed) but the Church can't ever condone an abortion before it has happened under any circumstance, from an EO point of view.

BTW, I do intend to get back to your earlier post, but you kind of wore me out logically speaking and I still need to recover

Anastasios

You say show the maximum amount of mercy towards her and help her in any way we can.... I agree, but don't forget the other half of the equation, the men who are involved.

Part of my story: When I was 20 years old I had relations with a gal I worked with for a period of time. One day she just up'ed and disappeared. A year later I received a letter, I had gotten her pregnant, she told me that she had an abortion, that she was feeling like a murderess, and she did it to protect my future as I was in college. The very core of my soul was severly wounded that day I read that letter, a numbness i wish to never experience again, anger, guilt, shame, etc. Satan had a field day with me. I won't go into the sordid details but i punished myself and tried to destroy myself for 18 years, keeping it hidden within, wishing to die and for many of those years exceptionally angry with God. Then one day I could not handle it anymore, my life was in complete termoil, I couldn't be angry at God for what I had done and someone else. I just wanted healing being so utterly broken inside so I turned to our Lord and a real battle started within myself which brings me up to the 18th year of my struggle. Today I am so dependent on the Lord, I fear losing Him, it would be like riping my skeleton out of my flesh and me crumpling into a pile of goo.

Lord have mercy on me.

Jim

Thank you for sharing your story. I think we often do forget how this issue affects the men involved.

Indeed. This story is quite a refreshing departure from the usual grandstanding on this issue.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Canon 91 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691 A.D.), decreed: "those who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers."

Indeed. This story is quite a refreshing departure from the usual grandstanding on this issue.

I'm glad he meets your approval.

If you believe I was grandstanding or something, I am sorry, not my intent.

Please don't forget the power of personal testimony of where a person came from to where they are going, you can look at the lives of Saints and their past to see that power.

Not at all! Your post was quite the antithesis of grandstanding.

I'll take this rare opportunity to agree and second Mr. Y's post.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Canon 91 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691 A.D.), decreed: "those who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers."

You see, this sort of thing is exactly the problem with abortion discussions: Citations from canons, from laws, from this or that authority--there's no heart in the discussion, no compassion. I liked the genuine, honest story for its candor, and its concern more for the people involved in abortions than for the theory behind it. I'm sorry that offended you.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 11:14:51 PM by ytterbiumanalyst »

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Canon 91 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691 A.D.), decreed: "those who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers."

You see, this sort of thing is exactly the problem with abortion discussions: Citations from canons, from laws, from this or that authority--there's no heart in the discussion, no compassion. I liked the genuine, honest story for its candor, and its concern more for the people involved in abortions than for the theory behind it. I'm sorry that offended you.

Yeah, those Fathers had no heart and no compassion. They just decided to condemn abortion because they were a bunch of callous misogygenists. Or, then again, maybe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, thus their hearts were full of compassion for the innocent child in the womb.

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

Canon 91 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691 A.D.), decreed: "those who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers."

You see, this sort of thing is exactly the problem with abortion discussions: Citations from canons, from laws, from this or that authority--there's no heart in the discussion, no compassion. I liked the genuine, honest story for its candor, and its concern more for the people involved in abortions than for the theory behind it. I'm sorry that offended you.

Yeah, those Fathers had no heart and no compassion. They just decided to condemn abortion because they were a bunch of callous misogygenists. Or, then again, maybe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, thus their hearts were full of compassion for the innocent child in the womb.

Are you actually saying that what is posted on OC.net is guided by the Holy Spirit?

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Yeah, those Fathers had no heart and no compassion. They just decided to condemn abortion because they were a bunch of callous misogygenists. Or, then again, maybe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, thus their hearts were full of compassion for the innocent child in the womb.

I think the canons and church laws are concerned about the people involved...not the least of which the infant who is about to be torn limb from limb and tossed into a trash can...

I think you're both barking up the wrong tree. I don't think Mr. Y was talking about what the Fathers themselves had to say. ISTM he was talking about how people on this forum use the Fathers in a way that is crassly insensitive.

Yeah, those Fathers had no heart and no compassion. They just decided to condemn abortion because they were a bunch of callous misogygenists. Or, then again, maybe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, thus their hearts were full of compassion for the innocent child in the womb.

Are you actually saying that what is posted on OC.net is guided by the Holy Spirit?

Yeah, those Fathers had no heart and no compassion. They just decided to condemn abortion because they were a bunch of callous misogygenists. Or, then again, maybe they were guided by the Holy Spirit, thus their hearts were full of compassion for the innocent child in the womb.

I think the canons and church laws are concerned about the people involved...not the least of which the infant who is about to be torn limb from limb and tossed into a trash can...

I think you're both barking up the wrong tree. I don't think Mr. Y was talking about what the Fathers themselves had to say. ISTM he was talking about how people on this forum use the Fathers in a way that is crassly insensitive.

What is insensitive about the way the Fathers are being used?

I think Christians in general have developed such a high tolerance for sin that we can't handle the moral clarity of the Fathers when they speak so bluntly on these issues. I mean, St. Basil calls those who procure abortions murderers, in the same paragraph as axe-murderers and highway robbers (First Canonical Letter, Canon 8 ). On the subject of abortion there is no gray to be found with the Fathers.